--- Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://www.msnbc.com/news/864430.asp > > An excellent article. <snip> It presents the potentially good outcomes of a (more-or-less unilateral?) American invasion of Iraq very well; Saddam's downfall is without question desirable. The same Newsweek issue has also the following articles:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/864439.asp "...There should be no illusions that the reconstruction of Iraq will be anything but difficult, confusing, and dangerous for everyone involved,� says a recent working paper from the Council on Foreign Relations in New York and the James A. Baker Institute at Rice University. �If Washington does not clearly define its goals for Iraq and build support for them domestically and with its allies and partners,� the report predicts in its very first paragraph, �the United States may lose the peace, even if it wins the war.� The paper offers a blend of prescriptions for a U.S. and then a U.S.-U.N. occupation leading to the creation of a sovereign Iraqi government within two years. But it is laced with dire warnings. The immediate aftermath of fighting will find American troops trying to stop �anarchy, revenge and score-settling,� it notes. While the initial goal is to disarm Saddam Hussein, �there is a significant danger that some in the weapons complex will simply �privatize� technology or systems.� That could make weapons of mass destruction more available, not less, to the likes of Osama bin Laden and groups he�s helped inspire..." http://www.msnbc.com/news/864455.asp 'It's a matter of trust-' "Our military�s the best trained and prepared in world history. Maybe so, but were you paying attention last October when the Pentagon was finally forced to admit that 250,000 faulty battle-dress overgarment (BDO) suits manufactured by Isratex Inc., whose executives are now in jail for fraud, have been lost amid 800,000 other BDO suits that work just fine? Even now, nobody can track down which are which... "...The hawks argue, rightly, that Saddam is evil, too. But even if you agree, as I do, that he will eventually have to be removed by force, bold assertions of a direct threat to world peace aren�t the same as real evidence of that threat. Condi Rice has a point when she says that �we don�t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.� OK, the gun doesn�t have to be smoking. But there does have to be proof that a gun exists. And we have to know�not trust�that it is pointed at us." It occurred to me previously that maybe this whole scenario is in some way a set-up: Bush the cowboy 'bad cop,' and Powell the dovish 'good cop.' A sort of high-stakes game in which the goal is to convince Saddam (and others) that Bush really will attack, alone or not, and if he (SH) wants to survive, he'd better take his money and run. Now that GC Powell seems to be turning more hawkish, it's a further turning of the thumbscrews. If it works, a nearly bloodless regime change would result - very slick. Of course, there'd still be aftermath to worry about, but maybe that's been taken into account with Putin/Russia waiting in the wings to help 'now that American imperialism is no more.' <wry grin> Unless someone else already posted this idea, and, in a sleep-deprived haze, I morphed it into 'my own' thought. Which is possible. :} Debbi __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
